I never really understand the claim that Red Bull was a "bad car" in traffic from 2010-2013. It lacked some top speed, sure, but the car had great traction and was incredible on the brakes. Also, the Red Bull (from what I could see) was able to follow other cars closely through the corners without losing as much downforce as some other cars did.

Vettel and Webber both pulled of loads of overtakes from 2010-2013 thanks to Red Bull's superior chassis alone.

Vettel did certainly better than all the drivers on the grid, but you have to consider some "facts":

1. Webber. I am not sure I have seen a worse starter in F1 (Youtube has few of his terrible starts). Vettel was pretty safe when starting besides him.

2. Even to this day, Mercedes starts are not the best on the grid, and their clutch is not up to the task.. One aborted start, and their clutch is done, leaving the drivers fighting to not do worse than 5th.

3. Redbull of those years, for me still remain the best qualifiyng car of recent years. In qualifyings when fuel was not a problem, the amount of downforce generated thanks to the blown diffusers and flexiwings tricks was ridiculous. The car was mighty on the brakes(downforce) and its traction was out of this world. The amount they gained in the corners was incredible. Those were cars impossible to pass, although they sucked very hard when in traffic!!!

4. I don't recall Vettel losing his many engines or having his gas pedal stuck in qualifying.

5. In Mercedes they are constantly managing "imbalances" (Zetsche word) between drivers to keep the fight interesting. How is that whenever the other teams are too close for comfort or when Mercedes setups are wrong you then see BIG differences between drivers? Drivers are clueless(compared to engineers) and would not notice any "engineering" done for the sake of "balance" and moral.

I think Number 2 is stretching the definition of a fact more than a little. There have only been four races this year where one Merc driver has finished 5th or below and not one single race where a Merc driver hasn't finished on the top step, barring Spain where that was wholly driver-related. And when you analyse those four races Nico's 7th at Monaco had nothing to do with the start, while Lewis' 7th place in China was due to him having to start from the pit lane. That leaves two races. In Canada the Mercs lost a single place to Vettel at the start and then Nico went wide after clashing with Lewis. Bad start, yes, but not the main reason why Nico ended up where he did. That was again driver related. While in Baku Lewis owed his finishing place to starting 10th, followed by car setting issues during the race. In none of the above races was a poor start responsible for one of the Mercs fighting for 5th.

And of the remaining two races where a Merc driver finished 4th, Austria was the result of Nico and Lewis clashing at the end while leading the race, while in Germany Nico dropped to 4th at the start, where he also finished, some 17 seconds ahead of the 5th placed driver.

So all in all none of the poor starts Mercedes had this season left them fighting to do better than 5th. Not one.

Going to point 3, I'd also question how this may be considered a fact. The Mercedes since 2014 has had an enormous advantage in qualifying, especially with their qualifying engine mode. They only lose a front row lockout when a driver has issues or when it rains, reducing their advantage. In fact, the only time this year where anyone was genuinely competitive to them was Monaco. The Red Bull was a superb car, but I don't see how anyone could possibly state it had a greater advantage than these Mercs have had.

In the Mercedes Ricciardo and Vettel would give him some serious problems.

Nobody is as good at converting wins out of a race winning car as Vettel. 9 wins in a row in 2013. The Mercedes drivers have never managed that in a single season between them.

I've got to scratch my head at your thinking here. You think Vettel's ability to win several races in a row in a dominant car tells you something about how he would fare against Hamilton in identical machinery? The championship was done and dusted half way through that run. The fact that Vettel won a bunch of meaningless races has no impact on how he would perform against Hamilton. Either Hamilton or Rosberg could win that many in a row if they had a washed up teammate to compete against.

They haven't won 9 in a row BETWEEN them in a single season at Mercedes. The team mate has nothing to do with it.

What I am saying is that Vettel is very good at closing out a winning opportunity. As I keep saying it would come down to quali IF Vettel had the speed Hamilton would be in real trouble.

If the quali battle was 50/50 between them I'd really fancy Vettel for the title.

Teammate has everything to do with it. I would say without hesitation based on 2014 and 2016, no way does Vettel win 9 in a row against half good competition. Webber was a broken man convinced he was a number 2.

But the Mercedes pair are yet to do that BETWEEN them. As in the pair combined.

Team-mate has a lot to do with it IMO. As pointed out by lamo, but for Spain, the Mercedes duo would now be looking at a consecutive run of 14 so far this year. Spain happened because the Mercedes pair push each other to the max, challenge each other to the extent that mistakes and ill-judgments happen. Track position is often king in their battle so neither wants to concede an inch and both will push the limits to gain or retain it. Lewis will soon have to take an engine penalty so any attempts to extend his current, individual, consecutive run has probably already been scuppered before it’s even started.

IIRC, but for Canada 2014, their joint consecutive run would have been 10 – but the Mercedes pair lost their lead through no fault of their own( car problems).

Vettel’s 9 in a row was impressive and indeed, demonstrates a certain level of consistency in a given set of circumstances. But using that as a basis to say he would categorically beat Hamilton in the best car is far too arbitrary IMO. There are far too many variables to consider.

_________________You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do. Lewis Hamilton

Last edited by aice on Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In the Mercedes Ricciardo and Vettel would give him some serious problems.

Nobody is as good at converting wins out of a race winning car as Vettel. 9 wins in a row in 2013. The Mercedes drivers have never managed that in a single season between them.

I've got to scratch my head at your thinking here. You think Vettel's ability to win several races in a row in a dominant car tells you something about how he would fare against Hamilton in identical machinery? The championship was done and dusted half way through that run. The fact that Vettel won a bunch of meaningless races has no impact on how he would perform against Hamilton. Either Hamilton or Rosberg could win that many in a row if they had a washed up teammate to compete against.

They haven't won 9 in a row BETWEEN them in a single season at Mercedes. The team mate has nothing to do with it.

What I am saying is that Vettel is very good at closing out a winning opportunity. As I keep saying it would come down to quali IF Vettel had the speed Hamilton would be in real trouble.

If the quali battle was 50/50 between them I'd really fancy Vettel for the title.

Teammate has everything to do with it. I would say without hesitation based on 2014 and 2016, no way does Vettel win 9 in a row against half good competition. Webber was a broken man convinced he was a number 2.

But the Mercedes pair are yet to do that BETWEEN them. As in the pair combined.

That is only because they are racing each other hard. Except for Spain 2016 Mercedes would have won every race if they didn't take each other out. By 2013 Webber was completely subjugated and ineffectual as a driver so Vettel had a free run. If Hamilton was a lesser drriver or a number 2, we would all be marvelling about Rosberg's greatness as he strung 10 or more victories in a row with the Mercedes dominance. As Schumacher and Vettel found out, it's not so easy to will when the guy across the garage is racing you hard.

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

The 2015 Mercedes was every bit as dominant as the 2014 one. The Ferrari were closer only in that they were the clear 2nd best car, but the Mercs were never close to being threatened. Even this year the only time anyone has looked competitive was in changing conditions, which is most likely more down to the driver than the car. The Mercs are still much further ahead of the rest of the pack than the Red Bulls ever were

Yeah only Monaco this year did another car look anywhere near a Mercedes on pace. Lewis has been on cruise control when he's run without trouble aside from Monaco.

He's been running with a turned down PU lately apparently and still winning comfortably while Nico has been going life and death with the Red Bull's that are going full chat.

That doesn't point towards the RB being close, it points to Nico being poor.

Ferrari's PU is a lot closer to Mercedes this year but their chassis and strategy have been very ordinary at best and have rarely got it together.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

The average Mercedes advantage in Q is nearly 7 tenths so far this year, (minus Monaco anyway). 0.650 very roughly.

Don't have the time to do RB's in 2010/11/12/13 but I'll guess even this years Mercedes comes out at the biggest but I could be very wrong of course, just a gut feeling.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

Beat me to it

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

None of Vettel's Red Bull-Renaults (2010-2013) had anything like the car advantage that Hamilton and Rosberg have had (2014-2016/12). BY my reckoning the Mercedes has had more than twice the speed advantage to its nearest rival car, that had the Red Bull-Renaults. For 2012 I measured the Red Bull-Renault and McLaren-Mercedes equal fastest, top cars.

I'm not using this as gauge of Vettel vs Hamilton as drivers, because of many variables and differing situations.

2016 has not been a good season for comparing race stats, since only four races were without safety cars. Imo one or both Mercs have not been going all-out then winning or far ahead, so race times can be deceptive of actual car speed relationships.

Other posters above here have highlighted what has affected the Mercedes teams lack of éxpected race dominace (ie 1-2s which should have been ) as well as pointing out the Red-Bull-Renault's better/more reliable qualities. With the car speed advantage I have measured, the Merc's results have been way off what they should be.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

I think you might be right about 2010, I haven't got the time to do it properly but at a glance the first 6 or so races goes something like a tenth then two then manic malaysia over a second then four tenths then 9ths etc...

Could be bigger than this year at least.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

This may be controversial, but I think if you put a current-spec Vettel or Hamilton in the 2010 RB, you'd see them dominate the championship and nobody would call it even close. Webber could and possibly even should have won the title in that car, and in my opinion he was never more than a good 2nd tier driver. Vettel did win the title despite making far more mistakes than a champion can usually get away with. The raw speed of the car was incredible, its drivers just weren't able to extract it nearly as consistently as Hamilton can in the Merc.

To put the current Merc dominance in perspective, Nico has only managed to finish 2nd once when Hamilton won. If you put two drivers in the car who are arguably not even as good as Nico is right now, I think you'd have a much more open championship, although they'd still take it in the end.

I disagree. Yeah the 2014 car was in a league of its own but in 2015 the Ferrari was pretty close in at least half of the races and this year they have also been run close by Red Bull and Ferrari at times. In Monaco, Canada and Germany the Bulls and/or Ferraris were right there and Vettel arguably should have won in Australia if not for the wrong strategy.

I think the advantage that Mercedes have this season is in line with what Red Bull had during their most dominant years (2010, 2011, 2013). The 2014 car was on a different planet. You'd have to go back to the Williams cars from the 90s to see that level of dominance.

I agree that the 2012 McLaren was about as fast as the 2012 Red Bull overall but (as I think you alluded too) there were massive problems with strategy, pit-stops and reliability that compromised their title chances that season.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

So Red Bull certainly impressive, no question, but generally speaking their advantage was less than that of the Mercs this year. Only three races with more than a four tenths gap. Still looks like the Mercs are significantly stronger to me

This may be controversial, but I think if you put a current-spec Vettel or Hamilton in the 2010 RB, you'd see them dominate the championship and nobody would call it even close. Webber could and possibly even should have won the title in that car, and in my opinion he was never more than a good 2nd tier driver. Vettel did win the title despite making far more mistakes than a champion can usually get away with. The raw speed of the car was incredible, its drivers just weren't able to extract it nearly as consistently as Hamilton can in the Merc.

To put the current Merc dominance in perspective, Nico has only managed to finish 2nd once when Hamilton won. If you put two drivers in the car who are arguably not even as good as Nico is right now, I think you'd have a much more open championship, although they'd still take it in the end.

I think you make a valid point, but to be fair to Rosberg he did actually finish the race in 2nd place in GB, before a penalty demoted him. Which effectively means he finished 2nd behind Lewis the same number of times Lewis finished 2nd behind him and Lewis has only won one more race. They both have similar records in that regard

I think you make a valid point, but to be fair to Rosberg he did actually finish the race in 2nd place in GB, before a penalty demoted him. Which effectively means he finished 2nd behind Lewis the same number of times Lewis finished 2nd behind him and Lewis has only won one more race. They both have similar records in that regard

True, but Verstappen was close enough for that penalty to matter. If Merc still had the advantage they did in 2014, Rosberg wouldn't have lost a place to a 10-second penalty, so it still shows that they're not as far ahead as they used to be.

Also of note is that while the record may be similar, Lewis has only failed to finish 2nd to Nico once when he started that way (and that because he got hit at the first corner in what was at worst a 50/50 incident) - on every other occasion, something prevented him from qualifying on the front row (though in Baku it was entirely his fault, so that's a little different). In contrast, Nico has started either right behind or indeed in front of Lewis for every one of his victories, and has only converted a single one of them to a second place.

Additionally significant, Nico's victories all came at the start of the year during the window when Red Bull hadn't started to catch up. Lewis' wins have all come when the car is not as dominant (bar Hungary, perhaps) as it was at the start of the year, so Nico is much less guaranteed a 2nd place finish now if he runs trouble-free. If of course this trends continues, by the end of the year it will be difficult for either driver to finish first, let alone second. Since Mercedes dominance has been on a downward trajectory through 2016 to date, it's premature to make a comparison to Red Bull in 2010, where arguably their trajectory was upwards.

The Red Bull in 2010 and 11 only had a few tenths in hand. The 2016 Mercedes is way more dominant. I don't see how it's even close tbh.

Maybe the 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season is similar.

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

So Red Bull certainly impressive, no question, but generally speaking their advantage was less than that of the Mercs this year. Only three races with more than a four tenths gap. Still looks like the Mercs are significantly stronger to me

The Mercedes only has a few tenths in hand this year. The 2010 Red Bull was the most dominant RBR in terms of outright pace but driver errors and reliability skewed things that year. That car out-qualified the field by over a second at Hungary in dry conditions. The 2013 Red Bull was also a rock star but I agree that the 2011 car wasn't miles in front of the competition. Just 2-4 tenths usually but it was consistently the fastest at almost every circuit. They took 18 pole positions in 19 races that year.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

So Red Bull certainly impressive, no question, but generally speaking their advantage was less than that of the Mercs this year. Only three races with more than a four tenths gap. Still looks like the Mercs are significantly stronger to me

That's a valid opinion but the differences are similar.

Similar only in that they had an advantage, but the gap is significantly bigger for the Mercedes cars. Red Bull had an average advantage of just over three tenths, while the Merc advantage so far has averaged out at more than half a second. That's a pretty comfortable extra cushion.

Look, I agree with you that the Red Bull had a strong advantage over the competition that year, but they didn't have the unwavering dominance Mercedes have. Merc definitely aren't in the position they have been in the last two seasons, where they could pretty much have a coffee during the pit stops and still come out ahead, but they still enjoy a huge advantage over other cars greater than Red Bull enjoyed. Only outside influences prevent Mercedes from getting the top two podium spots every race

I think you make a valid point, but to be fair to Rosberg he did actually finish the race in 2nd place in GB, before a penalty demoted him. Which effectively means he finished 2nd behind Lewis the same number of times Lewis finished 2nd behind him and Lewis has only won one more race. They both have similar records in that regard

True, but Verstappen was close enough for that penalty to matter. If Merc still had the advantage they did in 2014, Rosberg wouldn't have lost a place to a 10-second penalty, so it still shows that they're not as far ahead as they used to be.

Also of note is that while the record may be similar, Lewis has only failed to finish 2nd to Nico once when he started that way (and that because he got hit at the first corner in what was at worst a 50/50 incident) - on every other occasion, something prevented him from qualifying on the front row (though in Baku it was entirely his fault, so that's a little different). In contrast, Nico has started either right behind or indeed in front of Lewis for every one of his victories, and has only converted a single one of them to a second place.

Additionally significant, Nico's victories all came at the start of the year during the window when Red Bull hadn't started to catch up. Lewis' wins have all come when the car is not as dominant (bar Hungary, perhaps) as it was at the start of the year, so Nico is much less guaranteed a 2nd place finish now if he runs trouble-free. If of course this trends continues, by the end of the year it will be difficult for either driver to finish first, let alone second. Since Mercedes dominance has been on a downward trajectory through 2016 to date, it's premature to make a comparison to Red Bull in 2010, where arguably their trajectory was upwards.

I agree with you that Nico doesn't look quite so imperious when there is actually a bit of competition. But to be fair to him he's also usually had mitigating circumstances when he's finished further down the road, too. But yes, overall I'd agree that Rosberg is much more vulnerable now he doesn't have quite the same level of dominance he's enjoyed in the last two years and when mistakes carry a bigger potential punishment.

I'm not sure I'd agree their dominance has necessarily been on a downward trajectory. Expressed like that, it looks like a trend, whereas I see it just as Red Bull coming on song now their engine partner has stopped struggling. But I don't see them edging ever closer and whittling away at Mercedes' lead. We've had two races in Hungary and Germany where the qualifying gap was down to three or four tenths (which, let's face it, is still an impressive gap), but in the two races prior to that the gap was over one second, the best they've enjoyed for a long time. I think it's premature to suggest that Mercedes are being caught.

In Australia 3rd on the grid was eight tenths off the leading Merc. Bahrain half a second; China same; Russia six tenths. Spain was the first time anyone got within half a second of the Mercs. There did follow a couple of close races (and of course Monaco where Ricciardo qualified ahead), but they were the exception rather than the rule and normal service resumed in Baku when Nico was comfortably seven tenths ahead. In Austria Lewis qualified 1.3s ahead of the nearest non-Merc and followed that up by qualifying more than a second ahead again in Silverstone. A relatively close three tenths in Hungary and four tenths in Germany followed, but the general trend has been that the Mercedes has comfortably a half second in hand at least over anyone else for most of the year.

So Red Bull certainly impressive, no question, but generally speaking their advantage was less than that of the Mercs this year. Only three races with more than a four tenths gap. Still looks like the Mercs are significantly stronger to me

That's a valid opinion but the differences are similar.

Similar only in that they had an advantage, but the gap is significantly bigger for the Mercedes cars. Red Bull had an average advantage of just over three tenths, while the Merc advantage so far has averaged out at more than half a second. That's a pretty comfortable extra cushion.

Look, I agree with you that the Red Bull had a strong advantage over the competition that year, but they didn't have the unwavering dominance Mercedes have. Merc definitely aren't in the position they have been in the last two seasons, where they could pretty much have a coffee during the pit stops and still come out ahead, but they still enjoy a huge advantage over other cars greater than Red Bull enjoyed. Only outside influences prevent Mercedes from getting the top two podium spots every race

The only difference is that the Red Bull had an Achilles heel in terms of their performance on the extreme low-downforce/high speed tracks like Monza. Both had reliability issues and both a had a large advantage in terms of pace. You're only looking at qualifying times; which are still fairly similar in terms of the gaps. The difference is that, in those days, you could actually go that fast during the race too because the tires were Bridgestones.

Lewis is 27-16 up on wins since 2014, but a good point made earlier was Webbers starts. If Nico made starts like that, Hamilton would easily be 33-10 up on wins.

In Marks autobiography, he says once he knew he was leaving he wanted to go out at his best and trained like crazy at the end of 2013, putting in the hours on and off the track. In the last few races he had a very good pace. He took pole in 2 of the last 5 races in 2013 and not with luck either. He lost the lead both times as per usual.

On dominant cars, once a car is over 0.3/0.4 ahead of its rivals it becomes irrelevant how big the gap is. The only gain you get by being any quicker is in recovery drives from the back of the grid or if you get overtaken off the line. The Red Bull in 2013 didn't have as big of an advantage as the Mercedes but Vettel in 12 of his 13 wins, lead on the first lap. Race over.

So the whole, that car was 0.5 ahead of the field, this one was 1 second ahead doesn't make much difference in my opinion. Both cars will ease to the titles, baring mistakes and reliability issues.I think any driver would rather have a car 0.2 quicker than the field with a team mate on average 0.2 slower than them than have a car 0.8 quicker than the field and be just 0.1 quicker than there team mate.

So Red Bull certainly impressive, no question, but generally speaking their advantage was less than that of the Mercs this year. Only three races with more than a four tenths gap. Still looks like the Mercs are significantly stronger to me

That's a valid opinion but the differences are similar.

Similar only in that they had an advantage, but the gap is significantly bigger for the Mercedes cars. Red Bull had an average advantage of just over three tenths, while the Merc advantage so far has averaged out at more than half a second. That's a pretty comfortable extra cushion.

Look, I agree with you that the Red Bull had a strong advantage over the competition that year, but they didn't have the unwavering dominance Mercedes have. Merc definitely aren't in the position they have been in the last two seasons, where they could pretty much have a coffee during the pit stops and still come out ahead, but they still enjoy a huge advantage over other cars greater than Red Bull enjoyed. Only outside influences prevent Mercedes from getting the top two podium spots every race

The only difference is that the Red Bull had an Achilles heel in terms of their performance on the extreme low-downforce/high speed tracks like Monza. Both had reliability issues and both a had a large advantage in terms of pace. You're only looking at qualifying times; which are still fairly similar in terms of the gaps. The difference is that, in those days, you could actually go that fast during the race too because the tires were Bridgestones.

It's true I'm comparing qualifying times as they are the best representation of ultimate pace, and there the Mercs have nearly double the advantage the Red Bulls had. But in the race I still maintain that the Mercs have enjoyed a much greater advantage over other cars than the Red Bulls did. The Red Bulls won six out of the first twelve races. It's simply inconceivable that the Mercs would have such a comparatively low stat today. The Red Bulls were very strong in 2010 but other cars at least stood a chance. That's not true today

It's true I'm comparing qualifying times as they are the best representation of ultimate pace, and there the Mercs have nearly double the advantage the Red Bulls had. But in the race I still maintain that the Mercs have enjoyed a much greater advantage over other cars than the Red Bulls did. The Red Bulls won six out of the first twelve races. It's simply inconceivable that the Mercs would have such a comparatively low stat today. The Red Bulls were very strong in 2010 but other cars at least stood a chance. That's not true today

I actually calculated the winning margns for Red Bull in 2010 and Mercedes (to date) this year, and it was an average of ~9 seconds for RBR and ~15 seconds for Merc, with three wins by 10 seconds or more for RBR and four for Merc so far.

Of course, none of that debunks my belief that the RBR drivers were getting less out of the car than the Merc drivers are, but it does show that for the total package - drivers and car - the current Mercedes is significantly more dominant.

Lewis is 27-16 up on wins since 2014, but a good point made earlier was Webbers starts. If Nico made starts like that, Hamilton would easily be 33-10 up on wins.

In Marks autobiography, he says once he knew he was leaving he wanted to go out at his best and trained like crazy at the end of 2013, putting in the hours on and off the track. In the last few races he had a very good pace. He took pole in 2 of the last 5 races in 2013 and not with luck either. He lost the lead both times as per usual.

On dominant cars, once a car is over 0.3/0.4 ahead of its rivals it becomes irrelevant how big the gap is. The only gain you get by being any quicker is in recovery drives from the back of the grid or if you get overtaken off the line. The Red Bull in 2013 didn't have as big of an advantage as the Mercedes but Vettel in 12 of his 13 wins, lead on the first lap. Race over.

So the whole, that car was 0.5 ahead of the field, this one was 1 second ahead doesn't make much difference in my opinion. Both cars will ease to the titles, baring mistakes and reliability issues.I think any driver would rather have a car 0.2 quicker than the field with a team mate on average 0.2 slower than them than have a car 0.8 quicker than the field and be just 0.1 quicker than there team mate.

Hmm, that's subjective of course but not sure I'd agree with that. A choice of having only a single competitor or having potentially a gaggle of them waiting for you to slip up? I think most drivers would take the 2014 Mercedes advantage over the 2010 Red Bull one any day of the week.

The bigger the gap, the bigger the margin of error. If the Mercs had only had a two to three tenths margin over the rest of the field last year they wouldn't have locked out the front row on a number of occasions, especially since the gap between the team mates was often greater than that. And then the final results may have looked completely different. But their huge margin allowed them to recover from mistakes and poor performances and basically shrug them off. This year they don't have such a big margin but it's still enough that they don't really have to worry about anyone else too much most of the time

The point I was making is the most important thing in F1 is to be significantly quicker than your team mate. 0.1 is pretty marginal and you will lose to him on quite a few weekends and if the reliability swings the wrong way you'll lose the title. 0.2/0.3 he is only going to trouble you a few times per season. If Hamilton had 0.2 more pace in qualifying against Rosberg that 27-16 wins would become something like 35-8.. but Hamiltons advantage is very slim in qualifying and that is what has made it a battle between the two.

I guess it all depends on the dynamics of the teams and rivals. I think Hamilton would be much more likely to win the title if you made both the Mercedes car and Rosberg 0.3 a lap slower. Hamilton would win nearly all the races still enjoying a 0.2-0.3 per lap advantage in his car over the season, Nico would become Webber hardly winning any races and the Red Bulls/Ferrari probably win 3-4 races a season between them and being fighting Nico most weekends. It becomes a Vettel-Webber type scenario. Vettel had easier titles in 2011 and 2013 than Hamilton did in 2014 and 2016 so far as Rosberg is guaranteed wins if something happens to Lewis. Nico was pretty poor in 2014 and nearly won it.

Considering the discussion was regarding stringing consecutive wins together you have to consider that 2013 was the end of a fairly lengthy set of regulations and the cars and particularly engines were more or less bullet proof. Hard to win 9 consecutive races when you can almost guarantee a few engine or brake over heating issues, if not in the race then in qualifying.

So Red Bull certainly impressive, no question, but generally speaking their advantage was less than that of the Mercs this year. Only three races with more than a four tenths gap. Still looks like the Mercs are significantly stronger to me

That's a valid opinion but the differences are similar.

Similar only in that they had an advantage, but the gap is significantly bigger for the Mercedes cars. Red Bull had an average advantage of just over three tenths, while the Merc advantage so far has averaged out at more than half a second. That's a pretty comfortable extra cushion.

Look, I agree with you that the Red Bull had a strong advantage over the competition that year, but they didn't have the unwavering dominance Mercedes have. Merc definitely aren't in the position they have been in the last two seasons, where they could pretty much have a coffee during the pit stops and still come out ahead, but they still enjoy a huge advantage over other cars greater than Red Bull enjoyed. Only outside influences prevent Mercedes from getting the top two podium spots every race

The only difference is that the Red Bull had an Achilles heel in terms of their performance on the extreme low-downforce/high speed tracks like Monza. Both had reliability issues and both a had a large advantage in terms of pace. You're only looking at qualifying times; which are still fairly similar in terms of the gaps. The difference is that, in those days, you could actually go that fast during the race too because the tires were Bridgestones.

It's true I'm comparing qualifying times as they are the best representation of ultimate pace, and there the Mercs have nearly double the advantage the Red Bulls had. But in the race I still maintain that the Mercs have enjoyed a much greater advantage over other cars than the Red Bulls did. The Red Bulls won six out of the first twelve races. It's simply inconceivable that the Mercs would have such a comparatively low stat today. The Red Bulls were very strong in 2010 but other cars at least stood a chance. That's not true today

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

Mine's were very rough(lot of rounding up and down) as I was in a rush so It wouldn't surprise me if they were a mile off to be honest.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

3 tenths for Red Bull and 5 tenths for Mercedes so it's not double as such, then you are not factoring in the drivers themselves, the Mercs are up against Ricciardo who beat Vettel in qualifying by over a tenth in 2014, so the difference is not as massive as many probably would have thought?

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

3 tenths for Red Bull and 5 tenths for Mercedes so it's not double as such, then you are not factoring in the drivers themselves, the Mercs are up against Ricciardo who beat Vettel in qualifying by over a tenth in 2014, so the difference is not as massive as many probably would have thought?

I said almost double. It's not far off. I'm going on the assumption that drivers are reasonably equal. Otherwise you go down that road where Webber beat Rosberg etc. The difference is still pretty massive

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

3 tenths for Red Bull and 5 tenths for Mercedes so it's not double as such, then you are not factoring in the drivers themselves, the Mercs are up against Ricciardo who beat Vettel in qualifying by over a tenth in 2014, so the difference is not as massive as many probably would have thought?

I said almost double. It's not far off. I'm going on the assumption that drivers are reasonably equal. Otherwise you go down that road where Webber beat Rosberg etc. The difference is still pretty massive

I double checked my calculation because it didn't look right and it's actually 6 tenths for Mercedes so you was right with double the difference.

Having said that it still shows how fast the 2010 Red Bull was and going down the route I've mentioned before in a previous discussion between us, the Red Bull was faster than any car Hamilton had previous to 2014.

That the Merc's have nearly twice the advantage in Q compared to what the Red Bull had in 2010. It's roughly 4 and a half tenths for RB and 6 and a half for Merc I think.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

3 tenths for Red Bull and 5 tenths for Mercedes so it's not double as such, then you are not factoring in the drivers themselves, the Mercs are up against Ricciardo who beat Vettel in qualifying by over a tenth in 2014, so the difference is not as massive as many probably would have thought?

I said almost double. It's not far off. I'm going on the assumption that drivers are reasonably equal. Otherwise you go down that road where Webber beat Rosberg etc. The difference is still pretty massive

I double checked my calculation because it didn't look right and it's actually 6 tenths for Mercedes so you was right with double the difference.

Having said that it still shows how fast the 2010 Red Bull was and going down the route I've mentioned before in a previous discussion between us, the Red Bull was faster than any car Hamilton had previous to 2014.

I thought we'd already agreed that the Red Bull was the best in 2010. The difference for Lewis was that there were two teams better than the opposition in 2007 & 2008, not just one.

In the calcs I made for the same period in 2010 the RBs were just over three tenths ahead, while the Merc are just over half a second on average. It's possible I got my calcs wrong of course but will check again later

3 tenths for Red Bull and 5 tenths for Mercedes so it's not double as such, then you are not factoring in the drivers themselves, the Mercs are up against Ricciardo who beat Vettel in qualifying by over a tenth in 2014, so the difference is not as massive as many probably would have thought?

I said almost double. It's not far off. I'm going on the assumption that drivers are reasonably equal. Otherwise you go down that road where Webber beat Rosberg etc. The difference is still pretty massive

I double checked my calculation because it didn't look right and it's actually 6 tenths for Mercedes so you was right with double the difference.

Having said that it still shows how fast the 2010 Red Bull was and going down the route I've mentioned before in a previous discussion between us, the Red Bull was faster than any car Hamilton had previous to 2014.

I thought we'd already agreed that the Red Bull was the best in 2010. The difference for Lewis was that there were two teams better than the opposition in 2007 & 2008, not just one.

I'm sensing some semantics here, my point was that the 2010 Red Bull was better than the 2007 and 2008 McLarens by virtue of the point you just made?

3 tenths for Red Bull and 5 tenths for Mercedes so it's not double as such, then you are not factoring in the drivers themselves, the Mercs are up against Ricciardo who beat Vettel in qualifying by over a tenth in 2014, so the difference is not as massive as many probably would have thought?

I said almost double. It's not far off. I'm going on the assumption that drivers are reasonably equal. Otherwise you go down that road where Webber beat Rosberg etc. The difference is still pretty massive

I double checked my calculation because it didn't look right and it's actually 6 tenths for Mercedes so you was right with double the difference.

Having said that it still shows how fast the 2010 Red Bull was and going down the route I've mentioned before in a previous discussion between us, the Red Bull was faster than any car Hamilton had previous to 2014.

I thought we'd already agreed that the Red Bull was the best in 2010. The difference for Lewis was that there were two teams better than the opposition in 2007 & 2008, not just one.

I'm sensing some semantics here, my point was that the 2010 Red Bull was better than the 2007 and 2008 McLarens by virtue of the point you just made?

I'm trying to understand your point. I'd already said in that previous discussion that the Red Bull was the best car in 2010, while the Ferrari and McLaren were joint best cars in 2007 and 2008. Why does it need reiterating?